The ILX is based on previous gen Civic I believe. So even loaded it's not comparable and probably most people know that. Infotainment system for example is pretty much out of date. I would not be surprised if the ILX would get discontinued after this model year.

TonyEX wrote:(1) I wonder if the ILX is syphoning Civic Touring sales. Most people don't care/know about the underlying platform, they just see the ILX as better out fitted and with more power. (And no CVT).

(2) The price really drives cars at this price point. I wonder what the margins are for AHM for the ILX.

Lucien wrote:The ILX is based on previous gen Civic I believe. So even loaded it's not comparable and probably most people know that. Infotainment system for example is pretty much out of date. I would not be surprised if the ILX would get discontinued after this model year.

I think the Average Joe sees this as a step up over the Touring. SQ comparisons aside, the infotainment is more relevant thanks to the addition of AA & Carplay. And I've heard this iteration drives much better than its predecessors, thanks in part to a new electric rack and revised suspension tuning. Paired with the comparatively more responsive 2.4 + DCT, the only real noticeable disadvantage with this platform is probably the fuel economy and rear passenger volume.

If I were in the market for the Civic Touring Sedan, I'd be giving the ILX a serious look.

Lucien wrote:The ILX is based on previous gen Civic I believe. So even loaded it's not comparable and probably most people know that. Infotainment system for example is pretty much out of date. I would not be surprised if the ILX would get discontinued after this model year.

I live in California.

They renamed the "repeal the gas tax" initiative as "stop road works" and the lo-info voters turned it down.

Clueless. Most people are simply clueless.

Unless the change between old and new is so fundamental that it can be felt readily at all conditions, most people just have no clue. No frickin' clue.

TonyEX wrote:(1) I wonder if the ILX is syphoning Civic Touring sales. Most people don't care/know about the underlying platform, they just see the ILX as better out fitted and with more power. (And no CVT).

(2) The price really drives cars at this price point. I wonder what the margins are for AHM for the ILX.

I'd rather have the ILX than the Civic Touring.

You know, we had two previous Civics, '12 and '12 CSis, we bought the '16 Touring Coupe.

The truth is that the previous gen Civic (and current ILX) is a pretty good platform to begin with.

I think you're right. As much as we love the '16, the truth is that the ILX ups the ante in many things, including the stereo and the better powertrain. And, at $31K fully loaded it does look very nice, considering our Touring Coupe stickered at $27K.

Point taken but the proper question would be how many Civic Touring does Honda sell a day.

Itís like this: Acura came out and said, when the ILX price dropped back down, that the two cars didnít have very many crossover shoppers. So I can see why they are back in this price range.

However the lack of crossover shoppers proves that there is no reason for them to be in the price range at all - ďluxury/performanceĒ buyers arenít looking for the cheapest car. And the ILX sells poorly so who are the targeting here exactly? Buyers are looking for value - Acura doesnít have to be in the $25-$30k sedan range to provide its buyers value. Look how much the new A220 is going to cost.

Point taken but the proper question would be how many Civic Touring does Honda sell a day.

Itís like this: Acura came out and said, when the ILX price dropped back down, that the two cars didnít have very many crossover shoppers. So I can see why they are back in this price range.

However the lack of crossover shoppers proves that there is no reason for them to be in the price range at all - ďluxury/performanceĒ buyers arenít looking for the cheapest car. And the ILX sells poorly so who are the targeting here exactly? Buyers are looking for value - Acura doesnít have to be in the $25-$30k sedan range to provide its buyers value. Look how much the new A220 is going to cost.

Itís very unlikely that Acura intends for the ILX to be what it currently is for the long haul. Either it disappears after this version reaches end of life or it launches a much more advanced second generation at a higher price point.

Until we see where Acura takes this after the current ILX ends its run, we canít really determine where this model fits in. Right now itís a stopgap effort meant to buy some time. It was either this or go without a model slotted below the TLX. One has to assume Acura thought that overall having this stopgap offering makes more sense than having nothing.

Lucien wrote:The ILX is based on previous gen Civic I believe. So even loaded it's not comparable and probably most people know that. Infotainment system for example is pretty much out of date. I would not be surprised if the ILX would get discontinued after this model year.

I think the Average Joe sees this as a step up over the Touring. SQ comparisons aside, the infotainment is more relevant thanks to the addition of AA & Carplay. And I've heard this iteration drives much better than its predecessors, thanks in part to a new electric rack and revised suspension tuning. Paired with the comparatively more responsive 2.4 + DCT, the only real noticeable disadvantage with this platform is probably the fuel economy and rear passenger volume.

If I were in the market for the Civic Touring Sedan, I'd be giving the ILX a serious look.

Civic also offers AA & Carplay. The screen and infotainment is next gen with visible better resolution. The ILX infotainment hardware is basically 6 years old (2012 HW with some SW refreshes).

I can see interior quality could give impression of higher quality. But Civic is lot roomier and you do notice that especially cargo space (15.1 versus 12.4). So not sure if that's enough.

But either way which model someone prefers, ILX sales are very low and very likely won't be redesigned. Lexus also stopped with their CT and that had much higher sales.

TonyEX wrote:(1) I wonder if the ILX is syphoning Civic Touring sales. Most people don't care/know about the underlying platform, they just see the ILX as better out fitted and with more power. (And no CVT).

(2) The price really drives cars at this price point. I wonder what the margins are for AHM for the ILX.

I'd rather have the ILX than the Civic Touring.

You know, we had two previous Civics, '12 and '12 CSis, we bought the '16 Touring Coupe.

The truth is that the previous gen Civic (and current ILX) is a pretty good platform to begin with.

I think you're right. As much as we love the '16, the truth is that the ILX ups the ante in many things, including the stereo and the better powertrain. And, at $31K fully loaded it does look very nice, considering our Touring Coupe stickered at $27K.

We'll see what happens on the next iteration of the ILX.

You keep stating the previous Civic platform was good when the car was mediocre at best which is why Honda did a very fast and premature refresh. It was a cheap effort all around. The current Civic is miles better in pretty much all aspects.

Point taken but the proper question would be how many Civic Touring does Honda sell a day.

Itís like this: Acura came out and said, when the ILX price dropped back down, that the two cars didnít have very many crossover shoppers. So I can see why they are back in this price range.

However the lack of crossover shoppers proves that there is no reason for them to be in the price range at all - ďluxury/performanceĒ buyers arenít looking for the cheapest car. And the ILX sells poorly so who are the targeting here exactly? Buyers are looking for value - Acura doesnít have to be in the $25-$30k sedan range to provide its buyers value. Look how much the new A220 is going to cost.

Itís very unlikely that Acura intends for the ILX to be what it currently is for the long haul. Either it disappears after this version reaches end of life or it launches a much more advanced second generation at a higher price point.

Until we see where Acura takes this after the current ILX ends its run, we canít really determine where this model fits in. Right now itís a stopgap effort meant to buy some time. It was either this or go without a model slotted below the TLX. One has to assume Acura thought that overall having this stopgap offering makes more sense than having nothing.

Iíd take a Civic Touring over the ILX for the following reasons:
- Vastly superior platform.
- Superior fuel economy.
- Roomier interior.
- Much better seating position.
- Itís a far more modern package.
- Itís a bit cheaper feature to feature.
- Although the K is superior in terms of character and refinement, I like the fact that a simple reflash can really wake up the 1.5t.

TonyEX wrote:(1) I wonder if the ILX is syphoning Civic Touring sales. Most people don't care/know about the underlying platform, they just see the ILX as better out fitted and with more power. (And no CVT).

(2) The price really drives cars at this price point. I wonder what the margins are for AHM for the ILX.

I'd rather have the ILX than the Civic Touring.

You know, we had two previous Civics, '12 and '12 CSis, we bought the '16 Touring Coupe.

The truth is that the previous gen Civic (and current ILX) is a pretty good platform to begin with.

I think you're right. As much as we love the '16, the truth is that the ILX ups the ante in many things, including the stereo and the better powertrain. And, at $31K fully loaded it does look very nice, considering our Touring Coupe stickered at $27K.

We'll see what happens on the next iteration of the ILX.

You keep stating the previous Civic platform was good when the car was mediocre at best which is why Honda did a very fast and premature refresh. It was a cheap effort all around. The current Civic is miles better in pretty much all aspects.

The execution of the '12 was mediocre in the parts they chose, but the '13 they had really upped the game and upgraded the parts and brought back details... like the inside trunk insulation and wheel well lining!

The big issue with some people was the demise of the 8000 rpm K20 in the Si for the torquey K24 motor.

But overall, the previous Civic platform was NOT a bad platform. They did not cut the corners on the design. And even then, they realized early on that they had cut back too much on the manufacturing parts cost... they were working on the '13 MMC before the '12 hit the streets!

Civicb18 wrote:Iíd take a Civic Touring over the ILX for the following reasons:
- Vastly superior platform.
- Superior fuel economy.
- Roomier interior.
- Much better seating position.
- Itís a far more modern package.
- Itís a bit cheaper feature to feature.
- Although the K is superior in terms of character and refinement, I like the fact that a simple reflash can really wake up the 1.5t.

Sorry, we do have a Civic Touring, the turbo and CVT is not a performance set up. I mean, you get used to it, but the set up in the ILX is better, even if the platform itself is older.

Besides, as it has been said, over and over, most people have no clue, nor do they really care about the "platform". If so, GM would have gone out of business 40 years ago. Most people just look at the overall experience of the car and the ILX is a very nice set up.

If you really care about the platform, then you get a CTR and stop posting about it -because you're too busy driving it.

TonyEX wrote:(1) I wonder if the ILX is syphoning Civic Touring sales. Most people don't care/know about the underlying platform, they just see the ILX as better out fitted and with more power. (And no CVT).

(2) The price really drives cars at this price point. I wonder what the margins are for AHM for the ILX.

I'd rather have the ILX than the Civic Touring.

You know, we had two previous Civics, '12 and '12 CSis, we bought the '16 Touring Coupe.

The truth is that the previous gen Civic (and current ILX) is a pretty good platform to begin with.

I think you're right. As much as we love the '16, the truth is that the ILX ups the ante in many things, including the stereo and the better powertrain. And, at $31K fully loaded it does look very nice, considering our Touring Coupe stickered at $27K.

We'll see what happens on the next iteration of the ILX.

You keep stating the previous Civic platform was good when the car was mediocre at best which is why Honda did a very fast and premature refresh. It was a cheap effort all around. The current Civic is miles better in pretty much all aspects.

The execution of the '12 was mediocre in the parts they chose, but the '13 they had really upped the game and upgraded the parts and brought back details... like the inside trunk insulation and wheel well lining!

The big issue with some people was the demise of the 8000 rpm K20 in the Si for the torquey K24 motor.

But overall, the previous Civic platform was NOT a bad platform. They did not cut the corners on the design. And even then, they realized early on that they had cut back too much on the manufacturing parts cost... they were working on the '13 MMC before the '12 hit the streets!

Wrong again Tony.

The 2012 was a pile of shit. If GM had made that car, it would have been the laughing stock of this board.

That said, the 2012 was a direct descendent of the 2006 Civic, which was then 6 years old. By the 2013 refresh, it was still a 7 year old platform. Now it is a 12 year old platform.

Other than features for price, it is pretty much inferior to the Civic in every way, and the Civic is starting to get to the point where it will be falling behind the segment, which is why they will redesign it in a few years. That's the nature of the game. There is NOTHING superior about the ILX except content for the price. And they can do that because, like old GM, they are taking a nearly 2 decade old design and throwing feature content at it and hoping nobody will notice.

Point taken but the proper question would be how many Civic Touring does Honda sell a day.

Itís like this: Acura came out and said, when the ILX price dropped back down, that the two cars didnít have very many crossover shoppers. So I can see why they are back in this price range.

However the lack of crossover shoppers proves that there is no reason for them to be in the price range at all - ďluxury/performanceĒ buyers arenít looking for the cheapest car. And the ILX sells poorly so who are the targeting here exactly? Buyers are looking for value - Acura doesnít have to be in the $25-$30k sedan range to provide its buyers value. Look how much the new A220 is going to cost.

Itís very unlikely that Acura intends for the ILX to be what it currently is for the long haul. Either it disappears after this version reaches end of life or it launches a much more advanced second generation at a higher price point.

Until we see where Acura takes this after the current ILX ends its run, we canít really determine where this model fits in. Right now itís a stopgap effort meant to buy some time. It was either this or go without a model slotted below the TLX. One has to assume Acura thought that overall having this stopgap offering makes more sense than having nothing.

There will be next generations of the ILX and RLX.

My hope is that the plan is to launch an Acura-exclusive platform - as per the RDX - in the next TLX and then spin off the next ILX and RLX from that platform. It seems like a no-brainer to do this on account of having a platform to be used across the sedan range justifies having an Acura platform for its sedans, rather than be stuck eventually adapting the Civic/Accord platform, meaning Acura would, in a sense, be bringing up the rear.

In addition to the perception that Acura sedans are not merely rebadged Hondas, doing this would mean that technology that would be deemed too costly to go into Civics and Accords could be considered for the Acura sedan platform. Yes this would likely result in a higher MSRP but not so much that Acura products would cease to be better value overall.

If the extension of the current ILX/RLX platforms well beyond the usual is a side effect of transitioning to such an approach, thatís a good thing. If weíre stuck with stopgap offerings in the meantime, thatís better than Acura continuing down a path that was just not getting it done.

All the weight that was taken out of the car for the sake of performance.

I dunno, it was quite good as a commuter, no need to rev it up to high rpm to get out of the way, plenty of torque to implement the "on your face" (*) lane change. The '13 was nicer.

They all had those wonderful displays on the dash. Fantastic graphics done by some precocious 8th grader. Useful as a screen door in a submarine. Entertaining as a TV in a power outage. At least it kept you occupied while the engine did its 6K to redline "dash".

I don't understand why you guys always keep dumping on it. Ay!

(*) An "on your face" lane change is that very quick change you make without really cutting somebody off, just someone who simply decided to keep too much room in front of them. What you do, is make the change and THEN use the turn signal. Because you know that if you use the turn signal BEFORE the lane change, they will speed up and close the gap.

All the weight that was taken out of the car for the sake of performance.

I dunno, it was quite good as a commuter, no need to rev it up to high rpm to get out of the way, plenty of torque to implement the "on your face" (*) lane change. The '13 was nicer.

They all had those wonderful displays on the dash. Fantastic graphics done by some precocious 8th grader. Useful as a screen door in a submarine. Entertaining as a TV in a power outage. At least it kept you occupied while the engine did its 6K to redline "dash".

I don't understand why you guys always keep dumping on it. Ay!

(*) An "on your face" lane change is that very quick change you make without really cutting somebody off, just someone who simply decided to keep too much room in front of them. What you do, is make the change and THEN use the turn signal. Because you know that if you use the turn signal BEFORE the lane change, they will speed up and close the gap.

My niece got tons of advice about avoiding the Ď12 Civic because of the well-known decontenting and general cheapening, long before I came along with my thoughts. The Ď13 she bought last year is one sweet little car and itís perfect for her. But as for that chassis underpinning the ILX, well, hereís hoping the above comments about an Acura-exclusive chassis for ILX, TLX and RLX comes along real soon.

All the weight that was taken out of the car for the sake of performance.

I dunno, it was quite good as a commuter, no need to rev it up to high rpm to get out of the way, plenty of torque to implement the "on your face" (*) lane change. The '13 was nicer.

They all had those wonderful displays on the dash. Fantastic graphics done by some precocious 8th grader. Useful as a screen door in a submarine. Entertaining as a TV in a power outage. At least it kept you occupied while the engine did its 6K to redline "dash".

I don't understand why you guys always keep dumping on it. Ay!

(*) An "on your face" lane change is that very quick change you make without really cutting somebody off, just someone who simply decided to keep too much room in front of them. What you do, is make the change and THEN use the turn signal. Because you know that if you use the turn signal BEFORE the lane change, they will speed up and close the gap.

It gets panned because it was a pile of shit. Even Honda admitted it. Probably time after all these years that you did too.

It also wasn't nearly the "pinnacle" of Si development and it was still a torqueless wonder compared to anything in class.